Richard Dawkins

[wendigo100]

The name for someone who belives in a supernatural being is agnostic.

No, an agnostic is someone who doesn't rule it out.

[IR35 Avoider]

Douglas Adams rocks, as do Pastafarians, however to quote Bertrand Russell:

"An atheist, like a Christian, holds that we can know whether or not there is a God. The Christian holds that we can know there is a God; the atheist, that we can know there is not. The Agnostic suspends judgment, saying that there are not sufficient grounds either for affirmation or for denial. At the same time, an Agnostic may hold that the existence of God, though not impossible, is very improbable; he may even hold it so improbable that it is not worth considering in practice. In that case, he is not far removed from atheism."
(Bertrand Russell / 1872-1970)

He may be a famous philosopher, but I think Bertrand Russell cocked this up. Some atheists may say God doesn't exist, but I'm an Atheist who doesn't. I believe God is not a valid kind of answer to any big question, so the question of existence/non-existence or true/false in relation to him does not arise.

If the question is what is 1+1 and someone answers "blue", then I'm not going to accept that as a valid answer. I don't then describe myself as an "anti-blue" who believes that "blue" is definitely false. Instead I say the answer has to be a number and has to be derived using the rules of arithmetic, therefore "blue" is simply unacceptable as an answer, no matter what arguments or evidence are proposed in its favour.

As an Atheist I don't say I believe God doesn't exist, I say the concept of God does not fall into the domain of acceptable concepts. To say he doesn't exist is to concede that the question of his existence is valid, and I don't believe it is.

[Diver]

Over 2,500 years ago Parmenides stated that anything that involves a logical contradiction cannot exist.
I.e.
There are no square circles
There are no married bachelors
There is no largest number

That is because these notions are self-contradictory.
They violate the most fundamental law of logic-the law of noncontradiction-which says that nothing can both have a property and lack it at the same time.
So one way to prove a universal negative is to show that the notion of a thing is inconsistent.

To prove that God does not exist, then, one only has to demonstrate that the concept of God is inconsistent. Traditional theism defines God as a supreme being. A being so great and powerful, none greater can be conceived.
We know, however, that there is no supreme number because such a notion involves a logical contradiction. Every number is such that the number 1 can be added to it. If there were a supreme number, it would be such that the number 1 cannot be added to it, and that's impossible.
The belief in the existence of a supreme being is just as incoherent and idiotic as believing in the existence of a supreme number.

[wendigo100]

Over 2,500 years ago Parmenides stated that anything that involves a logical contradiction cannot exist.
I.e.
There are no square circles
There are no married bachelors
There is no largest number

That is because these notions are self-contradictory.
They violate the most fundamental law of logic-the law of noncontradiction-which says that nothing can both have a property and lack it at the same time.
So one way to prove a universal negative is to show that the notion of a thing is inconsistent.

To prove that God does not exist, then, one only has to demonstrate that the concept of God is inconsistent. Traditional theism defines God as a supreme being. A being so great and powerful, none greater can be conceived.
We know, however, that there is no supreme number because such a notion involves a logical contradiction. Every number is such that the number 1 can be added to it. If there were a supreme number, it would be such that the number 1 cannot be added to it, and that's impossible.
The belief in the existence of a supreme being is just as incoherent and idiotic as believing in the existence of a supreme number.

Ah, but are you comparing like with like? Whereas you can define the properties of a supreme number, how do you define the properties of a supreme being? And thereafter, what is it that you cannot "add" to it?

But suppose you could compare the two. In maths we use infinity as a supreme quantity. As far as we know, infinity also exists in a practical sense - the distance in whatever units you like to the end of space. People have great difficulty with the concept of infinite space (so-called "mind-boggling"), because our minds cannot model it.

Similarly, in theism we consider god, whatever that is, as the concept of a supreme being. Who is to say that god doesn't exist too, but we simply cannot model it?

[barely_pointless]

those of you who work in investment banking will surely apreciate this

Blaise Pascals' wager, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pascal-wager/

and anyone who uses cartesian array models will certaily apreciate this :

http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl3...artes-god.html


remember that when these mathematicans were working, the only patrons available to fund their work was either the Church or State(i.e the church).

I still think the vast majority OF or modern Religious protaganists are hypocrites, especially the Evangelicals.

edit -> Changed "or" to "OF"

[wendigo100]

I still think the vast majority or modern Religious protaganists are hypocrites, especially the Evangelicals.

Vast majority??? Still, it's your opinion!

Besides, is that not the equivalent of shooting the messenger?

[Diver]

Ah, but are you comparing like with like? Whereas you can define the properties of a supreme number, how do you define the properties of a supreme being? And thereafter, what is it that you cannot "add" to it?

But suppose you could compare the two. In maths we use infinity as a supreme quantity. As far as we know, infinity also exists in a practical sense - the distance in whatever units you like to the end of space. People have great difficulty with the concept of infinite space (so-called "mind-boggling"), because our minds cannot model it.

Similarly, in theism we consider god, whatever that is, as the concept of a supreme being. Who is to say that god doesn't exist too, but we simply cannot model it?

Infinity is a proven concept, it can be proven scientificaly/mathematicaly through logical progression.
God or the concept of god can not be proven by any scientific/mathematical means available to us
and simple logical progression would indicate that the concept of god will never be proven. unless god demonstrates his own existence, something that he has so far failed to do.
and don't quote the bible, it is unproven documentation based on faith (Spit)
and the writings of zealots whe lived hundreds of years after the events that they document with such conviction.

[fzbucks]

No, He's far too clever to leave any evidence lying around. Your argument is actually a point in His favour.

So are tooth fairies.

the tooth fairy left evidence under my pillow - a shiny coin as payment for my tooth!

[Diver]

the tooth fairy left evidence under my pillow - a shiny coin as payment for my tooth!

Merely evidence of an adult fostering belief of mythical persons on the impressionable mind of a gullible infant.


and there is no Santa

[barely_pointless]

Vast majority??? Still, it's your opinion!

Besides, is that not the equivalent of shooting the messenger?

meaning that most of them are not honest about their intentions, irrespective of whether they themselves think that their chosen religion makes them, ahem.....chosen. I cannot account for their intellect.

Nothing at all wrong with shooting the messenger in modern society , religion or politics, the US have proven that.